-
In the conventional quark model mesons are made of quark-anti-quark (
qˉq ) and baryons are made of three quarks (qqq ). Such a simple picture has achieved significant successes in the description of hadron spectra based on the constituent quark degrees of freedom. Meanwhile, as the fundamental theory for strong interactions, QCD predicts the existence of hadrons with more sophisticated structures, namely, exotic hadrons. These states, of which the structures are beyond the conventional quark model, have been a crucial probe for the non-perturbative phenomena of QCD. Among all the exotic candidates, hadrons with such quantum numbers that cannot be accommodated by the conventional quark model, would serve as a "smoking gun" for the existence of exotic hadrons. In particular, "hybrid", which contains the explicit excitations of the constituent-like gluonic degrees of freedom, can access the exotic quantum numbers ofJPC=1−+ as the lowest eigenstates. Its study has always garnered considerable attention from both experiments and theory.In Refs. [1, 2], the BESIII Collaboration reports the first observation of the
1−+ isoscalar hybrid candidateη1(1855) in the partial wave analysis ofJ/ψ→γη1(1855) →γηη′ . Its mass and width are(1855±9+6−1) MeV and(188±18+3−8) MeV, respectively. This progress may provide a great opportunity for a better understanding of these mysterious species of the QCD-predicted exotic states.Historically, evidences for the
1−+ hybrid were found by various experiments [3–8]; in addition, two light hybrid candidates,π1(1400) andπ1(1600) , were reported. However, owing to the limited statistics, their existences were far from broadly accepted. A comprehensive review of the early experimental results can be found in Refs. [9, 10]. Strong indication of the1−+ hybridπ1(1600) is obtained from the COMPASS Collaboration based on their partial wave analysis (PWA) results forπ−p→pπ+π−π− [11–14]. In a recent detailed analysis [15] by COMPASS, it shows that theπ1(1600) signal cannot be accounted for by the Deck effect [16]. A reanalysis of the COMPASS data with the coupled-channel approach also supports that theπ1(1600) signal should be originated from a pole structure in the scattering amplitude [17]. These results have provided strong evidences forπ1(1600) as a well-established1−+ hybrid candidate. In contrast, the signals forπ1(1400) are ultimately vague. According to the analysis of Ref. [17], there is no need for theπ1(1400) to be present in theρπ channel.Phenomenological studies on the
1−+ hybrid state can be found in the literature. By treating the gluonic excitation as an explicit constituent degree of freedom, phenomenological models were constructed to understand the exotic hadron spectrum or describe the mechanisms for their productions and decays [18, 19]. Among all these efforts, the flux tube model has achieved significant success in accommodating the broadly adopted quark pair creation (QPC) model for the strong decays of conventional hadrons and gluonic excitations of QCD exotics [20–23]. Calculations in the framework of QCD sum rules also provide interesting results on the properties of the light hybridπ1 state [24, 25]. In Ref. [26], the decay properties are studied forπ1 and its non-strange isoscalar partner. In Ref. [27], it is investigated that an isoscalar withIG(JPC)=0+(1−+) may be formed as a bound state ofηˉKK∗ . However, the mass is much lower thanη1(1855) .There is no doubt that lattice QCD (LQCD) simulations should play a crucial role in guiding the search for the hybrid states. In Ref. [28], the first systematic LQCD study on the excited isoscalar meson spectra was presented. It is interesting to observe the emergence of the mixing patterns between the SU(3) flavor singlet and octet such as the η and
η′ mixing. In the1−+ hybrid sector, some hints for the mixing between the non-strange and strange configurations are found. Meanwhile, its prediction of the isoscalar1−+ hybrid spectrum indicates relatively higher masses than the light axial vector mesons. It implies an unusual behavior of the excitations of the gluonic degrees of freedom in comparison with the orbital excitations within conventionalqˉq systems.In light of the discovery of
η1(1855) by BESIII [1, 2] and the LQCD simulations [28, 29], we propose a nonet scheme for the1−(+) hybrid states. In this scheme,π1(1600) is theI=1 state with the lowest mass, andη1(1855) is identified as one of theI=0 multiplets. The strangeI=1/2 partner is assigned toK∗(1680) , which is the only strange vector meson found in the vicinity of the1.6∼1.9 GeV mass region. Although the strange hybrid does not have a fixed charge conjugate parity, it cannot be easily distinguished from the conventionalqˉq vector meson; hence, there is no strong reason to suggest that such an exotic object should not exist. Considering the flavor-blind property of QCD, the strange hybrid ofqˉs˜g should at least share similar dynamics as theI=1 partnerπ1(1600) . In Ref. [28], the mass splitting between the flavor singlet and octet is determined to be significant. This is attributed to the important effects from the quark annihilations in theI=0 sector.As follows, we first analyse the mixing between
η1(1855) and its isoscalar partner, and the mass relationships among the1−(+) hybrid nonet. Two schemes, in whichη1(1855) is assigned to be either the higher or lower mass state in theI=0 sector, are explored based on the flux tube model picture. Phenomenological consequences will be discussed in their productions and decays in several typical processes. A brief summary will be given in the end. -
On the SU(3) flavor basis, the light hybrid mesons are described by a pair of
qˉq associated by gluonic quasiparticle excitations. Taking the flux tube model picture, theqˉq inside hybrid mesons are separated static color sources and are connected by the gluonic flux tube, to form an overall color singlet. The transverse oscillations of the flux tube that manifest the explicit effective gluonic degrees of freedom, will lead to the energy spectrum of the hybrid mesons. As studied in the literature, the lowest energy flux tube motion hasJPCg=1+− . Namely, the lightest hybrid multiplet can be formed by the relative S-wave coupling between a gluonic lump ofJPCg=1+− and an S-waveqˉq pair. With the total gluon spinJPCg=1+− , the lowest hybrid multiplets can be obtained:(0, 1, 2)−+, 1−− [29, 30]. Alternatively, in the constituent gluon picture, the lowest energy flux tube excitation can be described by the motion of quasigluon in a P wave, with respect to the S-waveqˉq .The gluonic excitations additive to the S-wave constituent
qˉq configuration suggest that for each S-waveqˉq pair, there should exist an SU(3) flavor nonet as the eigenstates of the corresponding Hamiltonian. For the same coupling mode involving the gluonic lump, these states can be related to each other by the Gell-Mann-Okubo mass relationship similar to that for the ground states in theqˉq scenario. This conjecture may have a caveat when the strange multiplets are included. Because the charged and strange states do not have the fixed C parity, this may raise the question whether a nonet scheme is feasible. Note that signals for chargedπ1(1600) have been seen in the decay channels ofρ0π− [11] andη′π− [12, 13]. Similar dynamics should appear in the strange sector and a nonet structure among the1−(+) multiplets should provide optimal guidance for a better understanding of the underlying dynamics.Taking the
1−+ hybrid as an example, it should contain flavor multiplets as follows:π+1, π−1, π01:uˉd˜g, dˉu˜g, 1√2(uˉu−dˉd)˜g ,
(1) η(8)1:1√6(uˉu+dˉd−2sˉs)˜g ,
(2) η(1)1:1√3(uˉu+dˉd+sˉs)˜g ,
(3) K∗+, K∗0, K∗−, ˉK∗0:uˉs˜g, dˉs˜g, sˉu˜g, sˉd˜g ,
(4) where
˜g represents the gluonic lump withJPCg=1+− . For the flavor octetη(8)1 and singletη(1)1 with isospinI=0 , they may mix with each other to form the corresponding physical states similar to the familiarη−η′ mixing.Considering the mixing between the hybrid flavor singlet and octet, the physical states can be expressed as
(η1Lη1H)=(cosθ−sinθsinθcosθ)(η(8)1η(1)1)=(cosα−sinαsinαcosα)(nˉn˜gsˉs˜g),
(5) where θ is the mixing angle between the flavor octet and singlet, and α is the mixing angle defined on the flavor basis
nˉn˜g (withnˉn≡(uˉu+dˉd)/√2 ) andsˉs˜g .The Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship can provide a constraint on the mixing angle θ via the following equation:
tanθ=4mK∗−mπ1−3mη1L2√2(mπ1−mK∗) ,
(6) where
η1L is the lower mass state in Eq. (5) and the sign of θ can be determined here. We note that the same relationship is also satisfied for the quadratic masses. The Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship also leads to the following mass relation,(mη1H+mη1L)(4mK∗−mπ1)−3mη1Hmη1L=8m2K∗−8mK∗mπ1+3m2π1 ,
(7) which is symmetric for
η1L andη1H , although it is the lower mass stateη1L defined in Eq. (5) to appear in Eq. (6). With the masses ofπ1(1600) andη1(1855) as the input for Eqs. (6) and (7), we are still unable to determine these three quantities, i.e. θ,mη1H/mη1L andmK∗ . In addition, it is unclear whetherη1(1855) is the lower or higher mass state in Eq. (5). However, we will later demonstrate that theηη′ channel is informative to impose a constraint on the determination of the1−(+) nonet. -
The flavor-blindness of the strong interactions also allows us to relate the SU(3) decay channels together [31–34]. Considering the two-body decay of
η1L andη1H into the pseudoscalar meson pairPP′ ①, two independent transition mechanisms can be identified, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (a) and (b). The transition of Fig. 1 (a) represents the flux tube string breaking with the quark pair creation. It is similar to the decay of a conventionalqˉq state into two mesons using the quark pair creation (QPC) mechanism. In the flux tube scenario, it corresponds to the flux excitation mode along the displacement between the quark and anti-quark, for which the potential is denoted asˆVL . The transition of Fig. 1 (b) corresponds to the flux excitation mode transversal to the displacement between the quark and anti-quark. The quark pair created from this mode will recoil the initial color-octetqˉq via the transverse flux motion. For a conventionalqˉq decay via the3P0 QPC mechanism, the kinematic regime as Fig. 1 (b) will be relatively suppressed with respect to Fig. 1 (a). In such a case, in order to balance the color, an additional relatively-hard gluon will be exchanged between the recoiledqˉq and the createdqˉq . In contrast, such a transition in the hybrid decay can naturally occur via the transverse mode of the flux tube oscillations [35]. Namely, the createdqˉq can easily obtain the color balanced by soft gluon exchanges, which can be absorbed into the effective potential without suppression. Such a transition through the transverse mode of the flux tube motions can be parametrized by the effective potentialˆVT .The transition amplitude for a
1−+ hybrid ofqˉq˜g decaying into two pseudoscalar mesons can then be expressed asMa=⟨(q1ˉq4)M1(q3ˉq2)M2|ˆVL|q1ˉq2˜g⟩≡g1|k| ,
(8) and
Mb=⟨(q1ˉq2)M1(q3ˉq4)M2|ˆVT|q1ˉq2˜g⟩≡g2|k| ,
(9) for these two decay modes, respectively. In the above two equations,
k denotes the three-vector momentum of the final-state meson in the c.m. frame of the hybrid, while the quarks (anti-quarks) represent the non-strange quarks (anti-quarks). Note that the QPC only contributes to a flavor singlet˜g→(uˉu+dˉd+sˉs)/√3 . We mention that when thesˉs pair is created, an SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter will be included. Furthermore, in the above two amplitudes, the interchanges of the final-state hadron indices are implied.This parametrization leads to a connection among the couplings of an initial hybrid state to different SU(3) channels, and they are collected in Table 1. Interesting features with the hybrid nonet decays can be learned as follows:
Processes Couplings π01→ηπ0 1√2(g1+g2)cosαP−Rg2sinαP π01→η′π0 1√2(g1+g2)sinαP+Rg2cosαP π+1→ηπ+ √2(g1+g2)cosαP−Rg2sinαP π+1→η′π+ √2(g1+g2)sinαP+Rg2cosαP η1L→ηη′ 12(g1+g2)sin2αP(cosα+Rsinα)+g2cos2αP(Rcosα−sinα) η1H→ηη′ 12(g1+g2)sin2αP(sinα−Rcosα)+g2cos2αP(Rsinα+cosα) K∗+→K+π0 1√2g1 K∗+→K0π+ g1 K∗+→K+η g1(1√2cosαP−RsinαP)+g2(√2cosαP−RsinαP) K∗+→K+η′ g1(1√2sinαP+RcosαP)+g2(√2sinαP+RcosαP) Table 1. Coupling constants for the
1−(+) hybrid nonet decays into pseudoscalar meson pairs. The couplings for the negative charge states are implied. The SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter R is also included.● It is rather clear that if the final states do not contain isoscalar mesons, the transitions will occur via the string breaking potential
ˆVL along the displacement between the quark and anti-quark. Namely, the transitions are similar to the conventional3P0 process. ForK∗ decays intoKπ , it will be difficult to distinguish them from the conventionalqˉq vector mesons.● Regarding the
π1 andK∗ decays into η orη′ plus aI≠0 state, such asπ01→ηπ0 andη′π0 , the couplings involve interferences between the processes illustrated in Fig. 1 (a) and (b). Because the mixing angle between η andη′ isαP≃42∘ , the couplings for the channels between η andη′ would be significantly different.●
η1L andη1H -decays intoππ andKˉK are forbidden by the Bose symmetry and G-parity conservation. They can only accessηη′ via the octet and singlet mixing. The coupling strengths exhibit non-trivial dependence on the mixing angle α. It can be observed that the decay pattern for these channels in a combined analysis should be sensitive to the value of α. -
A typical process for the production of a
JPC=1−+ hybrid in theJ/ψ -radiative decays is illustrated by Fig. 2. This figure demonstrates that the annihilations of the charm and anti-charm quark can create a pair of light S-waveqˉq associated by a constituent gluon in a relative P-wave to theqˉq . At the hadronic level, the Lagrangian for a general vector-vector-vector field interaction at the leading-order can be described byLVVV=igVVV(V1,ν↔∂μVν2V3,μ+V1,μVν2↔∂μV3,ν+V2,μVν3↔∂μV1,ν) ,
(10) where
V1 ,V2 , andV3 denote the vector fields. For the radiative decay ofJ/ψ→γη1 , because the photon is transversely polarized, the above Lagrangian will reduce to the following form:LJ/ψ→γη1=igJ/ψη1γFμνVμJ/ψVνη1 ,
(11) where
Fμν≡∂μAν−∂νAμ , while the vector fieldsVJ/ψ , A, andVη1 represent the initialJ/ψ , final-state photon, and hybridη1 fields, respectively;gJ/ψη1γ is the coupling constant. Note that the leading transition ofJ/ψ→γη1 is via a P wave. In the center of mass (c.m.) frame ofJ/ψ , the squared transition amplitudes for the twoI=0 states can be expressed as:|iM(J/ψ→γη1L)|2∝g2J/ψη1Lγ|qL|2(1+m2J/ψ/m2η1L) ,
(12) |iM(J/ψ→γη1H)|2∝g2J/ψη1Hγ|qH|2(1+m2J/ψ/m2η1H) ,
(13) where
qL andqH are the three-vector momenta ofη1L andη1H in theJ/ψ rest frame, respectively. The subscripts, "L" and "H" represent the low and high mass states, respectively. The two coupling constants,gJ/ψη1Lγ andgJ/ψη1Hγ , which account for the production mechanism for these two isoscalars, can be parametrized out:gJ/ψη1Lγ=g0(√2cosα−Rsinα) ,
(14) gJ/ψη1Hγ=g0(√2sinα+Rcosα) ,
(15) where
R≃fπ/fK≃0.93 indicates the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking effects in the production of thesˉs pair in comparison with the non-strangeqˉq pairs, andg0 describes the coupling strength for the production of a light hybrid configurationqˉq˜g ofJPC=1−+ in theJ/ψ radiative decays. It can be expressed asg0≡⟨(qˉq˜g)1−+|ˆHem|J/ψ⟩ ,
(16) where
ˆHem contains the dynamics for the transition in Fig. 2.The coupling relationship in Eq. (15) leads to the relative production rate for
η1L andη1H as follows:rL/H≡BR(J/ψ→γη1L)BR(J/ψ→γη1H)=(|qL||qH|)3(√2cosα−Rsinα)2(√2sinα+Rcosα)2m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H) ,
(17) which seems to be sensitive to the mixing angle α. Note that, in Refs. [1, 2] the
η1(1855) signal is actually observed in its decays intoηη′ . Moreover, the PWA results suggest that only oneI=0 hybrid state has been clearly observed in the1−+ partial wave amplitude. As illustrated in Subsection II.B, the decays ofη1L andη1H intoηη′ are strongly correlated with the mixing angle α and mechanisms for the flux tube breaking. This implies that the following branching ratio fractions can serve as constraints on the mixing angle:Scheme−I:Rη1L/η1(1855)≡BR(J/ψ→γη1L→γηη′)BR(J/ψ→γη1(1855)→γηη′)<10% ,
(18) and
Scheme−II:Rη1H/η1(1855)≡BR(J/ψ→γη1H→γηη′)BR(J/ψ→γη1(1855)→γηη′)<10% ,
(19) where we have assigned
η1(1855) as either the higher mass state (Scheme-I) or the lower mass state (Scheme-II). The relative rate (10%) is the production upper limit for the partner ofη1(1855) from the experimental measurement [1, 2].With the earlier extracted production and decay couplings, the general form for the joint branching ratio fraction can be expressed as:
Rη1L/η1H=(|qL||qH|)3(√2cosα−Rsinα)2(√2sinα+Rcosα)2m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H)×(|kL||kH|)3(ΓHmη1HΓLmη1L)2×[(1+δ)tan2αP(cosα+Rsinα)+2δ(Rcosα−sinα)]2[(1+δ)tan2αP(sinα−Rcosα)+2δ(Rsinα+cosα)]2 ,
(20) where
ΓL andΓH represent the total widths of the lower and higher mass states, respectively;qL,H andkL,H denote the three-vector momenta of the photon and pseudoscalar meson in the rest frames ofJ/ψ andηL,H , respectively; andδ≡g2/g1 indicates the relative strength between the two decay mechanisms for the flux tube breaking. As discussed earlier,|δ|≃1 is for the hybrid decays, while|δ|<<1 is for conventionalqˉq decays. In Eq. (21), if we approximateΓH/ΓL≃1 , the ratioRη1L/η1H will strongly depend on α and δ. -
Before we go into the detailed studies of the two schemes, we briefly summarize the present experimental information on the strange vector mesons. As presented by the Particle Data Group (PDG) [36], two excited
K∗ states are observed in the experiment, i.e.K∗(1410) andK∗(1680) . AlthoughK∗(1410) can be well accommodated by the first radial excitations of the vector meson nonet, the property ofK∗(1680) is far from being well explored. Note that the second radial excitations of the isoscalar pseudoscalar mesons can be occupied byη(1760) andη(1860) in the Regge trajectory [37], and the mass ofK∗(1680) , as the second radial excitation in the conventionalqˉq vector nonet, tends to be negligible. We also note that the strange pseudoscalar partner in the second radial excitation nonet has not yet been established in experiments, althoughK(1630) could be a candidate [36]. In the following analysis, we first considerK∗(1680) as the strange partner of the1−(+) nonet and examine whether it fits the constraint. Otherwise, we investigate the mass correlation ofK∗ with the mixing angle and other multiplets as required by the Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship. -
With the
η1(1855) assigned as the higher mass state, andπ1(1600) andK∗(1680) assigned as theI=1 and strange partner, respectively, we extractmη1L=1712.5± 8.7 MeV from Eq. (7), and the mixing angleα=30∘± 13∘ . The uncertainties are given by the mass uncertainties fromπ1(1600) andK∗(1680) via the Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship. We note that the PDG values [36] are adopted for the masses of these two states, i.e.mπ1=1661±13 MeV andmK∗=1718±18 MeV. From Eq. (6), we can extract the correlation between the mixing angle and theK∗ mass, and the obtained results are presented in Fig. 3.Figure 3. (color online) Correlation of the mixing angle α with the
K∗ mass. The uncertainties are due to the mass uncertainties for those input states. The shadowed area indicates the mass range ofK∗ from PDG [36].Although the uncertainties of the mixing angle α tend to be rather large, it indicates significant mixings between the flavor octet and singlet, and apparently deviates from the ideal mixing. This appears to be a necessary consequence provided there is only one
I=0 hybrid state observed in theηη′ channel inJ/ψ→γηη′ . Nevertheless, it favors the hybrid scenario to have important contributions from the transverse mode of the flux tube motions. To illustrate this, we first consider Eq. (18), where by taking the limit of ideal mixing, i.e.α=0∘ , the production ratiorL/H≃2 can be obtained. Note that the ratiorL/H is insensitive to the phase space factor and SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter R.In the case where
η1(1855) is the higher mass state, the ratioRη1L/η1H defined in Eq. (21) can be compared with the experimental observables withRη1L/η1(1855) < 10%. In the ideal mixing limit, we haveRη1L/η1(1855)≃(|qL||qH|)3(|kL||kH|)3m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H)×(ΓHmHΓLmL)22R2[(1+δ)tan2αP+2RδR(1+δ)tan2αP−2δ]2 .
(21) Note that the product
(|qL||qH|)3(|kL||kH|)3m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H) (ΓHmHΓLmL)2 actually enhances the ratio, whiletan2αP≃10 will further push the ratio up. It thus relies on the value of δ to decide the value ofRη1L/η1H . As discussed earlier, for conventionalqˉq meson decays, one would expectδ→0 . It actually leads toRη1L/η1H>1 , which contradicts the experimental observation. For the hybrid decays, the transverse mode of the flux tube motions plays an important role in the decays. It implies that|δ|≃1 , or is even the dominant transition mechanism with|δ|>1 . Eventually, to obtainRη1L/η1(1855) < 10%, as suggested by the experimental data, it is observed that δ should take a negative value, and the absolute value is atO(1) .In Fig. 4, with the mixing angle α within its uncertainty range, i.e.
α=30∘±13∘ , we plot the ratiosrL/H andRη1L/η1(1855) . For demonstration, we adoptδ=−0.8, −1.0, −1.2 to calculateRη1L/η1(1855) . It shows thatrL/H is not sufficiently suppressed while the decays via the transverse mode play a dominant role in suppressing the low-mass state. Although we cannot provide a precise value for δ based on the present experimental results, we deduce that the relative sign betweeng1 andg2 and their relative strength can consistently reflect the hybrid features.Figure 4. (color online) Dependence of the ratios
rL/H andRη1L/η1(1855) on the mixing angle α within the preferred range ofα∈(17∘, 43∘) . In Scheme-Iη(1855) is the high-mass state. On the left panel the solid line is forrL/H , while on the right panel the dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines correspond to the ratioRη1L/η1(1855) withδ=−0.8, −1.0, −1.2 , respectively.In Fig. 5, we illustrate the
1−(+) nonet in Scheme-I. The shadowed ranges depict the mass uncertainties while the central dashed lines denote the preferred mass. -
With the
η1(1855) assigned as the lower mass state, andπ1(1600) maintained as theI=1 partner, the determination of the lowerI=0 state will be differently correlated with the mass of the strange partner. This implies thatK∗(1680) is no longer suitable for being the strange partner of the nonet. This can be easily observed using Eq. (7), which is symmetric toη1L andη1H . If the sameK∗ mass is taken, the solution for the otherη1 mass will be a lower one, as in Scheme-I, andη1(1855) will be maintained at a higher mass state.Therefore, searching for the higher mass partner of
η1(1855) requires a higherK∗ mass as input. As discussed earlier, to date, we still lack experimental information about the vector strange spectrum. Fortunately, if we impose the BESIII observation as a constraint again, we should obtain the inverse form of Eq. (21) to satisfy Eq. (20). In such a case, we determine that the mixing angle remains located aroundα∈(25∘,45∘) corresponding tomK∗≃1.83∼1.90 GeV. Meanwhile, it shows that δ remains atO(1) , but favors a positive sign. In fact, the sign and magnitude of δ turn out to be very sensitive to the experimental constraint, which can be analytically observed using Eq. (21).Similar to Fig. 3, we plot in Fig. 6, the correlation between the mixing angle α and the
K∗ mass. The preferredK∗ mass ismK∗≃1.83∼1.90 GeV corresponding to the range ofα=25∘∼45∘ .Figure 6. (color online) Correlation of the mixing angle α with the
K∗ mass in Scheme-II. The uncertainties are due to the mass uncertainties for those input states.In Fig. 7, we present the results for
rH/L andRη1H/η1(1855) in terms of the mixing angle α within its uncertainty range, i.e.α=25∘∼45∘ . It is interesting to see that in Scheme-II, the production ofη(1855) inJ/ψ→γη1L,1H as the low-mass state is actually comparable with the higher one. It is the decay transition ofη1L→ηη′ that strongly enhances the signal ofη1(1855) in theηη′ channel while the higher mass state is suppressed owing to its weak coupling to theηη′ channel. Again, we observe the dominance of the transverse mode in the hybrid decays. For demonstrations, we adoptδ=0.8, 1.0, 1.2 to calculateRη1H/η1(1855) , which are presented on the right panel of Fig. 7.Figure 7. (color online) The dependence of the ratios
rH/L andRη1H/η1(1855) on the mixing angle α within the preferred range ofα∈(25∘, 45∘) . In Scheme-II,η1(1855) is the low-mass state. On the left panel the solid line is forrH/L , while on the right panel the dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines correspond to the ratioRη1H/η1(1855) withδ=0.8, 1.0, 1.2 , respectively.In Fig. 8, we illustrate the
1−(+) nonet in Scheme-II. The shadowed ranges represent the mass uncertainties and the central dashed lines denote the preferred mass.Figure 8. (color online) The
1−(+) hybrid nonet with mass uncertainties determined in Scheme-II. Namely,η1(1855) is assigned as the lower mass state withI=0 .Comparing these two nonet schemes, it demonstrates that the transverse mode plays an important role for understanding the decay pattern observed in experiment. The relative sign between the transverse and longitudinal modes should decide the scheme that is the physical one. However, based on the present experimental information, it is impossible to conclude. We would look forward to further observations, to provide a constraint on the sign from the experiment. Meanwhile, we note that the LQCD calculations of these two decay modes may also be beneficial in determining their relative signs.
-
To further investigate the characters emerging from the nonet structure of the
1−(+) hybrid states, we analyze the hadronic decays ofJ/ψ→VH and search for signals for theI=0 partner ofη1(1855) . Here, V denotes the vector mesons ρ, ω, and ϕ, while H represents the light hybrid multiplets. This process is illustrated in Fig. 9, and the leading-order Lagrangian is given in Eq. (10). The coupling forJ/ψ→[qˉq]1–[qˉq˜g]1−+ can be parametrized asFigure 9. (color online) Illustration of the production process for the
1−(+) hybrid states inJ/ψ→VH where V denotes the light vector mesons ρ, ω, ϕ andK∗(892) .gP≡⟨[qˉq]1–[qˉq˜g]1−+|ˆVP|J/ψ⟩ ,
(22) where
ˆVP represents the potential for the hadronic decays ofJ/ψ→VH . In addition, the detailed coupling constants for different decay channels are expressed as follows:gJ/ψρ+π−1=gP,gJ/ψωη1L=gPcosα ,gJ/ψωη1H=gPsinα ,gJ/ψϕη1L=−gPR2sinα ,gJ/ψϕη1H=gPR2cosα ,gJ/ψK∗+K∗−H=gPR ,
(23) where R is the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking factor defined earlier. In this Section, to distinguish the hybrid
K∗ fromK∗(892) , we denote it asK∗H . In addition to the partial wave factor (∝|q|3 ), which should be included for each channel and a mass function that has the same form for each channel, the branching ratio fractions among all theVH decay channels will be driven by the following relative strengths:ρ+π−1:ωη1L:ωη1H:ϕη1L:ϕη1H:K∗+K∗−H=1:cos2α:sin2α:R4sin2α:R4cos2α:R2 .
(24) Note that for the total of
ρπ , a factor of 3 should be multiplied to theρ+π−1 channel, while the total ofK∗ˉKH+c.c. , a factor of 4 should be multiplied to theK∗+K∗−H channel.If we consider the effects emerging from the partial wave factor and the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking factor R, we observe that the
ρπ1 channel has the largest branching ratio, while the production strengths for most of the other channels are actually comparable withα∼30∘ . In particular, this suggests that the production ofη1L andη1H are accessible in the same channel such asJ/ψ→ωηη′ . This differs from the case ofJ/ψ→γηη′ .It should also be interesting to study the
J/ψ→ K∗ˉK∗H+c.c. channel. BecauseK∗H hasJP=1− , which is the same as the radial excitation states of the vectorK∗(892) , it is difficult to identify the hybrid-like state. However, as discussed earlier, the isolatedK∗(1680) , either as a radial excitation state ofK∗(892) or a hybrid state, will provide crucial understandings on theK∗ spectrum. In the hybrid scenario,K∗H will prefer decaying intoK1π→K∗ππ . This implies thatJ/ψ→KˉKππππ will be ideal for theK∗H search.In Fig. 10, we plot the branching ratio fractions in Scheme-I for each channels with respect to
J/ψ→ρ+π−1 , for which we set it as unity, while the other channels are normalized to theρ+π−1 channel withR=0.93 adopted. The favored range of the mixing angle is approximatelyα∈(17∘,43∘) . However, a relatively broad range is plotted in Fig. 10 as an illustration. The dependence of the mixing angle produces certain patterns, which makes the combined study of theVH channel beneficial for the further verification of the1−(+) nonet.Figure 10. (color online) Predicted branching ratio fractions for
BR(J/ψ→VH)/BR(J/ψ→ρ+π−1) in terms of α in Scheme-I.For the results of Scheme-II, the
ωη1H andϕη1H thresholds are higher than theJ/ψ mass. A combined study can be conducted in other higher heavy quarkonium decays such asΥ→VH . -
Inspired by the observation of the isoscalar
1−+ hybrid candidateη1(1855) inJ/ψ→γη1(1855)→γηη′ , we investigated its SU(3) flavor partners using a parametrization method based on the flux tube model picture. We demonstrated that, although the present experimental information remains limited, it could depict the1−(+) nonet of which the production and decays were consistent with the expectations of the flux tube model. We determined that the observation of a singleη1(1855) in theηη′ channel is informative and can impose relatively strong constraints on the hybrid scenario. In particular, it suggests that the flavor octet and singlet mixing would be apparently deviated from the SU(3) ideal mixing, which indicates the importance of the quark annihilation effects. In the flux tube model, this implies that the transverse mode of the flux tube motions is important.We examined two schemes for the
1−(+) hybrid nonet by assigning the observedη1(1855) to be either the high or low mass state withI=0 . In both cases, we determined that the requirement that oneI=0 state should be highly suppressed inJ/ψ→γηη′ will also impose a strong constraint on the hybridK∗ mass. For the case in whichη1(1855) was the higher mass state,K∗(1680) appeared capable of filling the nonet chart reasonably well. For the case in whichη1(1855) was the lower mass state, a new stateK∗(1860) was predicted. We deduced that one of the main differences between these two solutions lies on the relative sign between the transverse and longitudinal modes of the gluonic motions in the decay of theI=0 hybrid states. This implies that additional constraints from other processes are required. As a strongly correlated process, we suggest a combined study ofJ/ψ→VH , to clarify the difference between these two schemes. Notice that theρπ1 production rate was expected to be significant and specific pattern actually emerged from the hybrid scenario. Hence, further evidences forη1(1855) and its partner inJ/ψ→VH at BESIII would be crucial to ultimately establish the1−(+) nonet. -
The authors thank Xiao-Hai Liu and Alessandro Pilloni for their useful comments and discussions.
